Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Director

Point of View (POV) railroading
I think this case is not isolated and it would be wrong to treat it as such. I think there is already widely spread practice to systematically misuse articles' talk pages for Point of View (POV) railroading, although the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles.

I am afraid this practice already reached level of metastases, especially in some topic areas which are not subject of wider community attention. Something should be done about it because it is very much damaging for wikipedia. It has bad consequences on both content of the articles and editors' enjoyment.

It would maybe help if such misuse or articles' talpages would be sanctionable, like i.e. wp:3RR. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

this rfc died
3 days of no comment = no concern, move to close Darkstar1st (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur. DeCausa (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted
I have deleted this RfC as it has failed to gather the required formal certification. I also note that it was formally derailed by multiple users engaging in threaded debate in all sorts of sections where that doesn't belong. While I believe there may well be concerns that require further looking at, this RfC was a false start. If anybody stills feels strongly about it, they should start over after some while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For people not familiar with this process, can you please explain the reason for deleting it instead of archiving it? Thanks. USchick (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See Requests for comment/User conduct. RfC/Us are routinely deleted unless at least two users "certify" the existence of a dispute and provide evidence of having attempted to solve it with the affected user previously. This formal criterion wasn't met (although, personally, I have no doubts there actually is a valid issue, and there have been editors who have tried to deal with it, but such are the rules). The other thing is that the whole RfC was irredeemably spoiled by the totally chaotic threaded debate between the participants on both sides – if we wanted to let it run, we would have had to remove almost everything and start over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that when you have a posse of POV allies they know that all you have to do is start saying "I know you are but what am I" and the process is "spoiled." The admins become "exasperated." If you make your case, step back and resist the ad hominem attacks, the consensus  becomes "overwhelmingly in favor" of the editor whom the complaint was brought against. Often the person who brought the complaint is admonished. Do you see how people begin to lose faith that this works?--Atlantictire (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Alanticire, you're talking nonsense. The vast majority of the posts being made were multiple ones by you and Silvio and Director arguing inappropriately with each other (all in the wrong places - although I think Director kept mainly to his section). ISAK made a long irrelevant post in the wrong section which was hatted. Aside from endorsements, USChick and RGloucester made a couple of posts and I made one post to say that it was a shambles. (I think someone else, can't remember who, made one supportive post for Director). I agree with FPaS that there are issues that should be looked at in a proper RfCU for Director, but thanks to Silvio's and your participation, that was never going to happen. You need to learn how RfCU's work before you participate. Did you even post an endorsement? I don't think you did - you seem to think this was some sort of mini-ANI. DeCausa (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ^This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's how an article plagiarized from a white supremacist survived an AfD and multiple trips to ANI: ad hominem attacks, masterful waters-muddying. "I think there are issues with Director" is a nice touch, DeCausa.--Atlantictire (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop it, Atlantictire. This thread is about why this process went formally wrong and how it could be legitimately continued. If you have nothing to say but bickering, stay out of here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not bickering. This is a well-honed tactic that has ensured the survival of many a noxious POV. If you are going to be touchy because you fell for it, I would ask that you recuse yourself from this discussion. I lose patience with touchy admins.--Atlantictire (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@De Causa, I am very sorry if I did not process properly this RfC/U. I asked to some senior users how to correctly process an RfC/U and could not obtain any operating guidance. I contactec around 15 users who participated in the past to disputes involving Director and I (mind well I contacted as much as possible users who supported Director in order to avoid any doubt of canvassing), but only a small fraction endorsed the RfC/U. Can you briefly tell me/us what we did wrong? May be the guidance given in the WP community portal is not clear. As you correctly state an RfC/U is not an ANI (please check in my talk page, I made this clear to many users). However, I genuinely believe it would be very useful if you could better edit the RfC/U guidance on the WP community portal. Perhaps the (non) clarity of the guidance played its role in making so many people confused. Thank you in advance for your valuable help. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The rules are actually clearly laid out in the page template itself. There's supposed to be a strict structure, where each person posts their comment in a separate section, and then nothing else is posted in that section except for a list of endorsement signatures. All threaded debate needs to go to the talkpage. The first person to break this rule was you, Silvio, posting threaded responses into Director's and Darkstar's sections; then everybody started doing the same and it went downhill from there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)r
 * Thank you for your clarification FP. However, I am happy to read that so many users consider this a valid issue, although procedures were not correctly followed. However, you have my full support because an essential category of justice is procedure. I hope we won't face any more this valid issue. If we will, be sure I will do my biggest efforts to stick adamantly to rules and procedures. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And for the record attempting to trip Silvio up with accusations of "canvassing" is shockingly bad faith. Silvio is an inexperienced editor. He hasn't been to ANI over 150 times, unlike some. Silvio was simply asking fellow editors who had been having similar issues what he should do. People aren't born knowing Wikipedia protocol.
 * Silvio went to ANI and was told by an admin to come here, which appears to have been bad advice. That said, when dealing with truly bad actors you are never going to have a tidy, honestly argued AfD, ANI, RfC, etc.--Atlantictire (talk)
 * Nobody in this thread has accused Silvio of canvassing; and yes, it is perfectly possible to have a procedurally proper RfC, no matter how problematic you think a user is – in fact, the strict rules about the format are in place exactly in order to ensure that the process works even when the situation is difficult. And cut out the snide remarks. Final warning: continue like this and you're blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha ha, no. Nobody in this thread accused Silvio of canvassing, but did you read the one you deleted? It is not perfectly possible to have a "procedurally proper" RfC when we are dead set on derailing it, because we know the only consequences we stand to suffer are admins giving us the result we want ("no consensus," "too much bickering," "reading is hard"). I've been calling this bullshit for weeks. I've been TRYING to get blocked. I would love for you to have the honor, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You seem especially suited to the act.--Atlantictire (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2014 (UT

Dear Atlantictire, I don't know how big is your frustation but I hope for you it is smaller than mine. I had to swollow 2 accusations to be sympathetic with the Fascism from an user who just 4 weeks ago was defending a nauseating antisemitic article. But I had to swallow my pain because I had not respected the protocol when I raised my concerns to the WP community. Certainly there are users who make distorted use of the rules to discourage other users and to annihilate them emotionally. Well, if we want to see such comportments ending I do not see any solution other than mastering the rules better than them. So please stay calm and keep going, we need you strong and unblocked. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Atlantictire plz strike thru the above comment, we dont want you blocked, we want you on our team building the largest repository of information since Alexandria. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I. Have. No. Faith. In the good intentions of Director or any of his defenders. I am not manipulative, and I do not defend editors who compare leftist, alpinist engineers to "fascists," then dissemble my intentions by making a show of good faith (emphasis on show). I know this impresses admins, but it sickens and repels me, and I certainly won't engage in it in order to preserve my editing privileges.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * i wasnt asking your opinion of an editor, nor defense of such, rather i suggested telling us you are trying to be blocked is counter productive and should be acknowledged as such by you to avoid any disruption. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)